Mr X asked the court to review the court decision dated 21 October 2008 on newly discovered circumstances, on the grounds that a repeated forensic economic examination to determine the correctness of actions of the management of the Company was conducted based on the ruling of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Mirabad District dated 15 January 2019.

According to the conclusions [of such examination], in 2005, upon the claimant’s withdrawal from the participation in the Company, the management incorrectly calculated his participatory interest both [in kind] in the form of the area of the transferred office premises and in monetary terms.

[The Collegium has cited Nr 3 and 4 RPL dd 24 May 2019]

21 October 2008 the Mirabad Inter-District Court for Civil Cases rendered the decision. The court dismissed the claim against the respondent [the Company] on allocation of a participatory interest in kind and compensation for moral harm, as well as the additional claim to annul the minutes of the general meeting [of participants].

23 December 2008 the [then] Tashkent City Court for Civil Cases (appellate instance) upheld the judgment.

[The Collegium has cited Art 437 II 1 Code of Civil Procedure]

The lower courts reasoned that the presented arguments do not constitute grounds for review of the decision of 21 October 2008 on newly discovered circumstances, since the conclusions of the said expert examination, although not known to the court and the claimant at the moment of consideration of the case, are not circumstances capable of influencing the conclusions of the court.

The Collegium, agreeing with the [lower] courts, deems it necessary to supplement the rationale with the following conclusions.

[The Collegium has cited Nr 8 RPL dd 24 December 2019 No 25]

The case materials, particularly the statement of claim, demonstrate that the respondent’s bad faith, inaccuracy, and inconsistency in the calculations were the basis for the claims, and therefore cannot be considered newly discovered circumstances.

In addition, the court refused to satisfy the claims on the grounds that in 2005, upon the formalisation of [the claimant’s] withdrawal from the participation in the Company, a notarised contract on transfer of the said immovable property was executed, and also, at the request of the claimant, the monetary amount was wired to the settlement account indicated by him. The procedure was conducted by mutual consent of the parties, voluntarily and upon leaving the Company the claimant agreed with the amount of the allocated participatory interest and did not apply to the competent authorities regarding recalculation of the amount or modification of the procedure for payment of the participatory interest.

In such circumstances, the Collegium, assessing the above-mentioned circumstances, agrees with the rendered judicial acts.